IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/touman/v42y2014icp282-293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Kirillova, Ksenia
  • Fu, Xiaoxiao
  • Lehto, Xinran
  • Cai, Liping

Abstract

Drawing on the literature in environmental psychology, the current study attempted to reveal dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment in the context of both nature-based and urban tourist destinations. Two-stage analysis of semi-structured interview data from a theoretical sample of 57 individuals yielded 21 aesthetic dimensions that were categorized into nine themes: Scale, Time, Condition, Sound, Balance, Diversity, Novelty, Shape, and Uniqueness. The identified themes were further conceptualized into a two-dimensional plane along Concrete-Abstract and Subjective-Objective continuums. This research posits that tourism allows a unique “appreciator-object” dyad where individuals are fully immersed in a destination in pursuit of a non-routine and oftentimes novel experience. The beauty of tourism destination is uniquely judged, admired, and appreciated, and the assessment of the beauty goes beyond the visual aspects and engages all senses. The findings make a theoretical contribution to the existing aesthetics literature and bear practical implications for destination planning, branding, and management.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirillova, Ksenia & Fu, Xiaoxiao & Lehto, Xinran & Cai, Liping, 2014. "What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 282-293.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:touman:v:42:y:2014:i:c:p:282-293
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517713002185
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.12.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Howley, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ rural landscape preferences," Working Papers 1105, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    2. Lee, Sangjae & Jeon, Sungil & Kim, Doyoung, 2011. "The impact of tour quality and tourist satisfaction on tourist loyalty: The case of Chinese tourists in Korea," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 1115-1124.
    3. Holbrook, Morris B & Moore, William L, 1981. "Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal versus Pictorial Presentations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(1), pages 103-113, June.
    4. Bloch, Peter H & Brunel, Frederic F & Arnold, Todd J, 2003. "Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(4), pages 551-565, March.
    5. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    2. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    3. Andrzej Greinert & Maria Mrówczyńska, 2020. "The Impact of the Process of Academic Education on Differences in Landscape Perception between the Students of Environmental Engineering and Civil Engineering," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, June.
    4. Rolf, Werner & Diehl, Katharina & Zasada, Ingo & Wiggering, Hubert, 2020. "Integrating farmland in urban green infrastructure planning. An evidence synthesis for informed policymaking," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz & Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek, 2020. "The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura E., 2015. "Households' Adoption of Drought Tolerant Plants: An Adaptation to Climate Change?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205544, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    8. Qindong Fan & Fengtian Du & Hu Li, 2020. "A Study of the Spatial Form of Maling Village, Henan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    9. Rong Fan & Junxi Fan & Jiayu Song & Kaiyuan Li & Wenli Ji, 2021. "Naturalness in the City: Demographic Groups’ Differences in Preference for Deciduous Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-21, July.
    10. Fedrigotti Valérie Bossi & Troiano Stefania & Fischer Christian & Marangon Francesco, 2020. "Public Preferences for Farmed Landscapes: the Case of Traditional Chestnut Orchards in South Tyrol," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 99-118, March.
    11. Li Cong & Yujun Zhang & Ching-Hui (Joan) Su & Ming-Hsiang Chen & Jinnan Wang, 2019. "Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    12. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    13. O'Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Kilgarriff, Paul & Ryan, Mary & Tsakiridis, Andreas, 2020. "Assessing preferences for rural landscapes: An attribute based choice modelling approach," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(2), August.
    14. Yoshimura, Nobuhiko & Hiura, Tsutom, 2017. "Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 68-78.
    15. Allain, Sandrine & Salliou, Nicolas, 2022. "Making differences legible: Incommensurability as a vehicle for sustainable landscape management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    16. Huan Yang & Ling Qiu & Xin Fu, 2021. "Toward Cultural Heritage Sustainability through Participatory Planning Based on Investigation of the Value Perceptions and Preservation Attitudes: Qing Mu Chuan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-14, January.
    17. Tong, Qingmeng & Qiu, Feng, 2020. "Population growth and land development: Investigating the bi-directional interactions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    18. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.
    19. Cathal Buckley & Peter Howley & Cathal O'Donoghue & Paul Kilgarriff, 2016. "Willingness to Pay For Achieving Good Status Across Rivers in the Republic of Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 47(3), pages 425-445.
    20. Rust, Niki A. & Rehackova, Lucia & Naab, Francis & Abrams, Amber & Hughes, Courtney & Merkle, Bethann Garramon & Clark, Beth & Tindale, Sophie, 2021. "What does the UK public want farmland to look like?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:touman:v:42:y:2014:i:c:p:282-293. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/tourism-management .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.